Skip to Content

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting - 7/13/2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date and Time: 
July 13, 2011 - 9:00am - 10:00am

Campus Calendaring Work Group Meeting - 7/13/2011

1. Zimbra - Ted will provide answers/comments to the questions and issued raised at our June 29 meeting at which the Zimbra Product Evaluation Group presented.

2. Jamie will report on his meeting, scheduled for July 12, with those on campus responsible for E'Discovery/Preservation Holds.

3. If he is able to speak with Tom (who will just be back from vacation) Jamie will report on his discussion with Tom regarding next steps (if any) related to our inclination for our outsourced solutions.

4. Product "Walk Throughs" - Each product evaluation group will "walk through" what that product would/should look like if implemented at UCSB.  Because of our increased interest in Google Apps and MS Office 365, those groups will go first and, if time, they'll be followed by the Local MS Exchange Group and the Zimbra Group (alphabetical order).

5. Input from "functional users" - We'll review the list of names acquired (so far) of functional users to survey for additional input regarding "special" dependencies.

6. Other items?


Campus Calendaring Work Group
July 13, 2011

Andy Satomi
Bill Doering
Doug Drury
Jamie Sonsini
Jason Simpson
Jim Woods
Kip Bates
Matthew Dunham
Nathan Walter
Randall Ehren
Ted Cabeen

Not Present
Alan Moses
Bruce Miller
Chris Sneathen
Daniel Lloyd
Polly Bustillos
Richard Kip
Thomas Howard

Ted reported on the additional questions asked about Zimbra.  There is an “Outlook connector” which would allow one to use the Outlook client with Zimbra.  Ted will include this additional information in the on-line report.

E’Discovery/Preservation Hold Input
Jamie reported on his meeting with Meta Clow, Lee Mudrick, Robert Tarsia and Mari Tyrrell-Simpson to apprise them of our efforts and seek any additional guidance regarding this area of dependency.  In general Jamie felt that we did understand the requirements and dependencies our campus has in this area.  He offered to be a liaison to this group as our discussions continued and will be responsible to explain to this group just how our final product selection would/could work for this important set of requirements.

Additional Input from “Functional Users”
Jamie reviewed the draft email prepared to be sent to those on campus who might have unique dependencies on email or e’scheduling services.  It seems that everyone is fine with the text involved.  We then discussed who to send this to.  Jamie already had a list of “advisors” for his email service and had received additional suggestions from Andy.  We talked about needing more names from the academic community.  Jamie will remind folks before sending the final email.

Coordination Required at this Time Regarding Outsourced Solutions
Jamie had offered to speak with Tom Putnam about whether we should do anything at this time to coordinate or communicate about our inclination towards the outsourced solutions.  Jamie had email’d Tom asking for input, but since Tom was just back from vacation (and likely very busy) he hadn’t heard back yet.

Product Walkthroughs
We had planned that each product evaluation group would prepare and present a “walk through” explaining just how their product would/could be implemented at UCSB.

At the very start of this discussion, Matt shared the current plans regarding the future of Identity Management services for the campus.  He explained that the thinking was to have very strong security and passwords for especially significant responsibilities and lighter-weight passwords for more general services.  This approach opened the door to the campus sharing these lighter-weight passwords with an off-campus vendor.  It seemed like the plans for Identity Management would be compatible with either of our outsourced options.

There was lots of general discussion prompted by these walkthroughs.  Specifically we discussed:

The support required, for either outsourced product, when it came to application development (to better interface administrative tasks with the product)

End-user support for departments without local (or outsourced) IT support

Local administration/creation of resources and accounts

The need for a “governance group” that would oversee the actual services offered, the various license options selected, etc.  This group will be critical in the final implementation decisions that will be needed.

Google Apps – Walkthrough
Randall distributed a single page diagram which described the significant aspects of Google Apps to be implemented at UCSB.  He focused on the local requirements, various provisioning models supported, the end-user support model suggested, cross-calendaring with local MS Exchange implementations and options for accounts (free vs with additional “Postini Services”).

Office 365 – Walkthrough
Jason and Bill reviewed the same basic issues used during the Google Apps discussion.  There was some discussion regarding the options available from Microsoft related to data (email) archives and services necessary for E’Discovery or Preservation Hold requirements.

General Discussion
There was some, very preliminary, discussion about comparing Google Apps and Office 365 as our final recommendation.  There will certainly be LOTS more discussion as we proceed, but it seems that the first (baby) steps are being taken.